Restructuring in Arizona, school restructuring incentives program

Restructuring in Arizona
School Restructuring Incentives Program
A Summative Evaluation Report
Excerpt
Dr. Susie Cook
and
Dr. Thomas M. Haladyna
Co-Directors
Arizona State University West
Phoenix, Arizona 85069-7100
(602) 543-6300
Executive Summary
A Joint Legislative Committee appropriated funding through Senate Bill 1552 (1 990)
to 15 schools in Arizona, offering appropriate incentives to restructure. Restructuring was
defined by the schools through their organization of objectives and activities around six goals
that were provided in the law.
External evaluators and consultants guided the schools through a self-study process
and offered technical assistance for both the evaluative process and appropriate activities for
restructuring. The purpose of self-study was to encourage schools to systematically
document educational practice. Data collection and analysis as well as interpretation of
findings will assist schools with the purposeful implementation of practices consistent with
a national perspective on restructuring. Most significantly, each school was encouraged to
determine site-specific outcomes, gather appropriate data, and interpret that data so as to
make meaningful changes that reflect individual school communities. No external, top-down
evaluation mandates were imposed on the schools other than to prepare the self-study report.
A comprehensive review of the literature revealed that three foci are central to
restructuring:
1. School-based decision making that allows those closest to the problems to pose
resolutions emerged as the most appropriate governance model;
2. Examining the inextricable relationships among curriculum, instruction, and
assessment will promote new instructional delivery strategies, alternative
grouping patterns for students, and revised curricula; and
3. Professionalism in the workplace will assume new meanings concerning the
roles and relationships of teachers, students, parents, and administrators when
schools are governed differently and when curriculum, instruction, and
assessment are closely examined and revised.
Restructuring among the 15 schools is evolving. Several of the schools have
established goals that are commensurate with all three of the above foci. Some of the 15
schools are exploring one focus and planning for further inquiry into the other two. And a few
of the schools are consumed with activities more related to traditional reform than genuine
restructuring. All of the schools have undertaken activities that feature the six goals set forth
in S.B. 1552.
Restructuring: A National Perspective
Mounting public and political pressure to change the way schools operate and educate
students has created formidable challenges for policy makers, researchers, and educators.
Questions about process, definition, and the implicit relationships among reform, restructuring,
and reconstruction have been largely answered by prescriptions, how-to manuals, and trial-and-
error efforts in schools. The need for rich descriptions of school environments and their
societal contexts is provoking researchers to examine the kinds of questions they ask about
the organizational structure of schools, student achievement, the delivery of curriculum and
instruction, local school governance, and the professionalism of teachers.
To restructure means to change the pattern or organization of an entity. However, for
educators and policy makers, the vision of what a restructured school looks like and how it
operates is not yet clear (Betteth, 1988). Without a clear and visionary focus, there can be
no clear direction for schools that are committed to improving student achievement and the
broader outcomes of the educational process. Although as a profession, education has
inimitably tended to shroud ideas in confusing "educationese," language does create images.
The clarity of the image is essential for the successful realization of any vision. Therefore,
the formation of concrete images of successful education practice is a part of the definition
of restructuring (National Governors Association, 1989).
The Lanauaae of Restructurinq
At issue in the plethora of educational jargon attempting to define current trends in reform
and restructuring is clarity of language. Tyack (1 990) stated that it is no accident that a
vague word like restructuring has also become the vogue. The term restructuring, as it
applies to schools, has frequently become synonymous with parental choice, teacher
empowerment, school-based decision making, parent involvement, national standards in
curriculum with tests to match, accountability, decentralization, or any combination of these
concepts.
Interestingly, the term restructuring has been borrowed from American industry, as
business seeks to redefine the processes of ownership in the effort to become more
competitive in a global economy. The diversity of the contextual use of the term restructuring
is equally evident as we observe the international implications of the reorganization of the
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (Cibulka, 1990).
Central to defining the language of restructuring is the understanding that the
crystallization of concrete images helps to form that elusive thing called vision (National
Governors Association, 1989). In our quest to envision appropriate educational activities,
aims, and purposes, several questions emerge. Will the current restructuring movement help
create a shared vision for schools? Will clarifying the vision assist schools with defining a
process for implementation? Will that vision refocus the mission of schools as we advance
toward and enter the 21 st century (Chandler, 1992)? To answer these questions, we must
briefly examine the historical implications of political change in education.
Restructurina the Vision
Kearns (1 988) offered that American scholars, who were once the envy of the world,
are perhaps best suited to the economic and social needs of an earlier time. He asserted that
the public school system is an outgrowth of the scientific management movement of the early
twentieth century. Goodlad (1988) also commented on the anachronistic nature of the
principles and models applied in education. He outlined five goals aimed at raising the level
of discourse about education.
1. Each child should acquire a meaningful grasp of his culture and develop the kinds of
intellectual tools that will enable him to deal with it.
2. Schools must have a real relationship to basic human values.
3. Schools must learn to deal with individual differences.
4. Individually, we must develop a sense of personal identity, to overcome problems of
alienation.
5. And societally, we must consider the emerging problems resulting from the possibilities
of intervening in human evolution.
Embedded in Goodlad's challenge of creating a vision for education is the change process.
Banathy (1990) acknowledged that over a dozen national reports have raised the level of
consciousness about a national education crisis. Yet, few of the reports have offered clear
means to a distinct end. Moreover, few, if any, of the reports have questioned the basic
premises about the educative functions of society. Most significantly, none of the reports has
examined the process for change.
Svstemic Chanae
The National Governors Association (1 989) recognized the need for long-range strategic
planning and management in education. The participants foretold the need for creative
thinking about how to reorganize the entire system in fundamental ways (restructuring), not
simply to strengthen a few of its parts (reform). Cibulka (1 990) affirms that restructuring is
an encouraging step beyond the nation's previous preoccupation with incremental educational
reform.
Systemic change implies a comprehensive view of the educational system undergoing the
proposed change. Argyris and Schon (1978) posed a basic question for initiating such a
comprehensive examination: How can the organization, through its structures, processes, and
interactions, develop the capacity and capability to engage in meaningful inquiry about itself?
To respond is to understand the fundamental relationship between the organization and the
individuals within it.
Tye (1 992) stated that institutions undergoing change rarely institutionalize the new
behaviors that employees have to exhibit in order for the change to successfully occur. He
postures that the behaviors must be identified and long-term training must be provided for the
stakeholders.
The problem of institutionalizing a process of change is an awesome undertaking
(Alexander, 1991). State constitutions speak to education in general terms, implying "a
measure of orderliness and uniformity ... unitary cohesiveness, not intended to create merely
a conglomeration of locally independent school agencies" (Alexander, 1991, p. 27). If the
obstacles emanate from constitutional provisions, the lawmakers' roles assume new
proportions of importance, particularly if restructuring translates to market choice and
school-based decision making.
From Vision to Practice
Cibulka (1990) defined restructuring as a process intended to lead to important
improvement in the outcomes of the educational system through dramatic changes in
instruction as well as in management and governance. Tinkering with reforms in scheduling
or with newly aligned curricula or purchasing costly technology simply does not constitute
genuine restructuring. Concrete images of restructured practice focus on three inclusive areas
(Cook and Haladyna, 1 992).
Decision makinq. Teachers, parents, and students make substantive decisions about
the problems and issues that confront their local schools. Principals are facilitators and
conveners rather than authoritative leaders (Bank and Williams, 1989). Those closest to the
academic and social problems of the school seek and implement solutions without interference
from central units, i.e. districts, states, and federal bureaucracies.
Curriculum, instruction, and assessment. A thoughtful examination of the inextricable
relationship among these three entities should offer altered delivery strategies, changes in the
structure of the school day, week, and year, meaningful ways of measuring student
achievement and performance, alternative grouping patterns for students such as multi-age
settings or vertical movement of teachers with students through grade levels, interdisciplinary
studies, and a meaningful use of technology that allows students to access information.
Professionalism in the work dace. Redefining school governance and changes in
curriculum and pedagogy generate new roles and relationships among teachers, parents,
students, and school leaders. Supporting the learning environment means that teachers have
time for committee work, conflict resolution, consensus-building, planning, and reflection with
colleagues. Central offices become support and service agencies; students and the community
are placed at the top of the organizational chart; lines of authority are reconfigured; power is
no longer in the hands of a few. With new roles and rights comes responsibility. Teachers
must aggressively pursue professional growth and development opportunities designed to
maximize their potential as adult learners.
The Mission of Schools
Restructuring efforts in public schools will fail without unencumbered national, state and
district sanctions. The scope of proposed change is so far-reaching, that without deregulation
and waivers from legislated mandates, local schools cannot surmount the barriers and
successfully deliver improved outcomes (Olson, 1992). Moreover, restructuring cannot be
mandated in the traditional, hierarchical genre to which education typically gravitates.
The educational stakeholders, parents, teachers, students, and school leaders, must
generate restructuring in the context of the local ethos. Clearly, however, there must be
accompanying incentives and procedures provided by policy makers so that the genesis of
sweeping change occurs within a research-based framework. The stakeholders ought not be
willing to go down the long road of change for merely the sake of change and deal again with
the tragedy of wasted time and wasted lives.
The restructuring of schools is becoming a compelling force in American public
education. Only the stakeholders can define the mission of local schools, the outcomes to
be accomplished, the local impediments to attainment, and the appropriate educational
practices that form the concrete images necessary for implementation. Researchers are
responsible for richly describing learning environments and producing a guiding set of
principles. The state lawmakers can provide monetary incentives and bureaucratic procedures
that facilitate genuine restructuring. And the national politicians must "reaffirm the value of
public education to our democratic way of life" (Tye, 1992, p. 13).
How is Arizona Doing?
With the passage of Senate Bill 1552 (1 990), a joint legislative committee established
monetary incentives for Arizona schools to restructure. Fifteen schools received funding to
explore restructuring efforts defined within the six goals described on page one of this report.
Consistent with the national tenets of restructuring, Arizona lawmakers provided
incentives without wholesale mandate. Encouraging local control and school level design, the
legislators confine communication with the projects to building level personnel. Teachers,
parents, and school administrators are invited to share their successes and their projected
needs and activities directly with the Joint Legislative Committee. Circumventing district
personnel for purposes of establishing a direct communication link between the legislature and
schools is clearly worthy of distinction from legislative efforts in other states.
The Joint Legislative Committee approved the use of external evaluators who were
committed to self-study. Each of the 15 project schools determined their project outcomes,
collected appropriate data, and reported their findings. Each school, in turn, received an
analysis of its self-study with recommendations for improving data collection and analysis.
Technical assistance will follow to assist schools with learning about and valuing the process
of documenting educational practice. The self-study model of program evaluation is in
accordance with the national perspective that favors school-based decision making and
promotes participation by the stakeholders in project design, implementation, and evaluation.
The 15 restructuring sites in Arizona have undertaken restructuring efforts in varying
degrees relative to a continuum that represents the spectrum of reform to reconstruction.
Understandably, the extent of genuine restructuring seemed to be a function of the level of
reform activities undertaken prior to project implementation. However, regardless of the levels
of sophistication at the outset of the projects, some schools progressed much farther than
others, suggesting a developmental view of success (Neibur, 1992). That is, progress toward
becoming a restructured school is at least as commendable as maintaining a restructured
school. Notably, those schools that demonstrated restructuring efforts consistent with a
national perspective were those that inclusively embraced all six goals with a clear vision.
Likewise, schools that didn't show evidence of significant progress seemed to view the six
goals as mutually exclusive. While the most successful projects showed progress in all six
areas, there was qualitative evidence that the six goals do not account for all of the elements
essential for success nor do they account for the intrinsic driving forces of restructuring
(Neibur, 1992).
Arizona hosts at least 15 school sites that have pioneered restructuring efforts. The
most immediate effects are already being felt in the lives of students and communities. An
examination of the barriers, transportability of the innovations, and review of the policies
affecting restructuring will encourage more schools in Arizona to undertake substantive
change.
How Can Arizona Improve Its Restructuring Efforts
Public schools are highly regulated institutions. Binding decisions made at the federal,
state, and district levels, which are intended to safeguard education, tend to have the
cumulative effect of placing a chokehold on local initiative.
The complex funding formula that allocates monies to schools in Arizona dictates the
funneling of dollars through central offices, i.e. districts. This channeling of resources
frequently imposes varying demands and obstacles to local school teachers and
administrators. It is hoped, if not proposed, that even in the absence of school district
reorganization in Arizona, supplementary monies such as S.B. 1552 funding, might be
allocated directly to local schools with the principal assuming fiduciary responsibilities.
Although Arizona lawmakers offered appropriate incentives to schools for restructuring,
there has, as yet, been no waiver in regulations and mandates. Evidenced in the national
review of literature, deregulation is central to the success of restructuring. It has been
difficult for some of the project sites to fully implement their visions within the confines of
a myriad of mandated programs and the host of regulations that emanate from federal funding
sources, e.g. Chapter 1. Struggling to fund programs and activities, it is not uncommon for
schools to become hopelessly gridlocked by too many funding sources, each demanding its
own set of expectations. It is hoped that the state policy makers will continue to explore
processes for loosening the complicated strings that accompany the flow of dollars to schools
without mitigating the quality of services or forgoing accountability.
A Model For Restructuring
In soliciting information about the projects in the pilot sites through interviews, the
comments from teachers, parents, and students did not cluster evenly or naturally around the
six goals outlined in S.B. 1552 (Neibur, 1992). There seemed to be little consensus across
sites, or even within sites, about the definition of any given goal. The comments offered
evidence that increasing student achievement surfaces as the hub of restructuring. Three
goals, implementing school-based decision making, examining and significantly altering
curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and improving professionalism in the work place
surround the hub of student achievement. Finally, characteristics or themes of restructuring
seem to include increased parental participation, greater effort to meet the unique needs of
students, increased efficiency and effectiveness, and an improved school or learning
environment. These findings offer support for a new model of restructuring, with
commensurate definitions, to be entertained by lawmakers as reiterations of Senate Bill 1552
(1 990) are drafted.
Curriculum, Instruction
and Assessment
pZq Participation Fl Efficiency F l r - 1 Environment
Vision Without Barriers
As noted in the national perspective, the three driving questions focused on vision.
The most striking characteristic of the successful projects was a dynamic decision making
process that developed and continually refined a shared vision of what restructuring meant
to the participating stakeholders. It was almost uncanny how closely the teachers, parents,
and students agreed upon the goals, successes, and difficulties of their restructuring efforts
when they felt they were involved in the process of defining what restructuring was to mean
in their school. When participants shared a common vision of restructuring, they were able
to create, modify, or dissolve programs and reallocate resources without violating the integrity
of their school identity. When a site lacked that unifying identify, the participants frequently
became paralyzed by trying to respond to the demanding and conflicting needs of too many
programs, too many goals, and too little time (Neibur, 1992).
Perhaps as other iterations of Senate Bill 1552 (1 990) are considered, policy makers
will include incentives to school sites for identifying a shared vision of restructuring and for
identifying processes and procedures for enactment. In so doing, the intrinsic driving forces
of teachers, parents, students, and administrators to restructure will emerge and provide an
even clearer picture of the restructured school.
Summary and Conclusions
We have sought to characterize school restructuring in Arizona through this first year's
evaluation process. What we have learned is that the state is indeed doing quite well in
stimulating 15 schools to thoughtfully restructure. We believe that defining restructuring
narrowly in future legislation may not be in the best interests of all schools. The peculiar,
individual nature of restructuring makes it necessary to afford each school site the opportunity
to uniquely define its effort in light of its individuality, particularly its students, parents,
community values, teachers, and other resources.
How Are the Schools Doina?
One of the most positive and uplifting features of these 15 projects, and the state's
efforts to assist them, is the creativity and energy of site-based decision making. Governance
teams are uniquely addressing the problems faced by schools. The site-based responsibility
and authority appear to capture the best of the restructuring effort. With each of these
schools, we are witnessing a unique, non-standard evolution toward effective self-governance,
a worthy goal for not only schools, but for students, teachers, and parents as well. The 15
schools are effectively addressing curriculum, instruction, and assessment in various ways.
And the schools have explored avenues for improving the professionalism of teachers,
recognizing the need for teachers to take care of and protect their profession.
How Can the Schools Improve Their Restructurina Efforts?
Planning for a vision of restructuring emerges from the literature and from the results
of the schools' self-studies as critical to the success of implementing meaningful change in
schools. Effectively documenting educational practice, that is, collecting and analyzing
appropriate data, and interpreting the results in a meaningful way are efforts that school
personnel are frequently uncomfortable in doing. Yet, within the profession, this void in
program evaluation reinforces the vulnerability of educators at every level. The 15 project
sites in Arizona are making significant progress toward improving their evaluation efforts.
Commitment to the evaluative process as well a commitment to making changes in schools
that will drastically alter the educational outcomes are consistent with the national perspective
on restructuring.
How Is Arizona Doina?
Arizona has made significant progress toward reducing the barriers to restructuring that
have been noted in other states. Examining the laws, policies, and procedures that provide
incentives to schools to restructure will provide additional clarity and focus to the educational
stakeholders. Currently, 1 5 schools have been encouraged to design, develop, and implement
programs that will affect local constituencies. Most significantly, there has been no wholesale
mandate for restructuring, which is clearly the highest form of compliment that ought to be
duly accorded to Arizona lawmakers.
How Can Arizona lm~roveIt s Restructurina Efforts?
S. B. 1552 currently directs the restructuring efforts in 15 pilot schools. As the law
is revisited, perhaps a reorganization of the six goals can be considered. Based on the
qualitative and quantitative evidence gathered from site visits and the self-study reports, an
altered model for restructuring emerges featuring a central focus on increasing student
achievement with concomitant goals of increasing decision making, altering curriculum,
instruction, and assessment, and improving professionalism. This set of goals is then
supported by themes or characteristics of restructuring such as meeting unique needs of
students, parental involvement, improving the learning environment, and increasing efficiency.
Policy makers can be proud of their efforts to encourage genuine restructuring in
Arizona schools. To the extent that the process is evolutionary, the 15 pilot sites ought to
be commended for asking tough questions about schooling and responding with heartfelt
activities designed to improve education in public schools in Arizona.
References
Alexander, D. and Alexander K. (1 992). American Public School Law,
St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Banathy, Bela. (1 990). The Transformation of Education by Design".
A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.
Bank, Adrianne, and Williams, Richard. (1 989). "Overcoming the
Obstacles to Site-Based Management." Thrust, 1 7-20.
Betteth, Diane. (1 988). Restructuring Schools; Reform for Everyone?: Restructuring Teaching:
Tower of Babel or Shared Vision. Teaching.
Chandler, M. & Cook, S. (1992) "The Nature of the Beast: Reform to Reconstruction". A
Paper Presented at sympoisum on school restructuring at the annual meeting of the
Arizona Educational Research Association, Phoenix.
Cibulka, James. (1 990). American Educational Reform and Government Power. Education.
Cook, S.J., and Haladyna, T.M. (1 992). Technical Report 92-1: School
Incentives Restructuring Pilot Project. Phoenix, Az: Center for Educational Reserch
an Evaluation Studies, ASU West.
Goodlad, John. (1 990). "Why our Schools Don't Get Much Better and How they Might".
Teacher, 1 7 (4).
Neibur, L. (1 992). Restructuring the Vision. A paper presented at a sympoisum on school
restructuring at the annual meeting of the Arizona Educational Research Association.
Phoenix.
Olson, L. (1 992). Quality is Job One: Changing Schools and Classrooms. TeacherMagazine
Sheane, Kim (1 992). Barriers to Restructuring. A paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Arizona Educational Research Association, Phoenix.
Tyack, David. (1974). "The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education".
Harvard Re view.
Tye, Kenneth A. (1 992). "Restructuring Our Schools: Beyond
the Rhetoric". Phi Delta Kappan 4 (1 1 8-1 4.
Yavorsky, Diane. (1 977). Discrepancy Evaluation: A Practitioner's
Guide. Charlottesville, VA: Evaluation Research Centerat the University of Virginia.

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

Restructuring in Arizona
School Restructuring Incentives Program
A Summative Evaluation Report
Excerpt
Dr. Susie Cook
and
Dr. Thomas M. Haladyna
Co-Directors
Arizona State University West
Phoenix, Arizona 85069-7100
(602) 543-6300
Executive Summary
A Joint Legislative Committee appropriated funding through Senate Bill 1552 (1 990)
to 15 schools in Arizona, offering appropriate incentives to restructure. Restructuring was
defined by the schools through their organization of objectives and activities around six goals
that were provided in the law.
External evaluators and consultants guided the schools through a self-study process
and offered technical assistance for both the evaluative process and appropriate activities for
restructuring. The purpose of self-study was to encourage schools to systematically
document educational practice. Data collection and analysis as well as interpretation of
findings will assist schools with the purposeful implementation of practices consistent with
a national perspective on restructuring. Most significantly, each school was encouraged to
determine site-specific outcomes, gather appropriate data, and interpret that data so as to
make meaningful changes that reflect individual school communities. No external, top-down
evaluation mandates were imposed on the schools other than to prepare the self-study report.
A comprehensive review of the literature revealed that three foci are central to
restructuring:
1. School-based decision making that allows those closest to the problems to pose
resolutions emerged as the most appropriate governance model;
2. Examining the inextricable relationships among curriculum, instruction, and
assessment will promote new instructional delivery strategies, alternative
grouping patterns for students, and revised curricula; and
3. Professionalism in the workplace will assume new meanings concerning the
roles and relationships of teachers, students, parents, and administrators when
schools are governed differently and when curriculum, instruction, and
assessment are closely examined and revised.
Restructuring among the 15 schools is evolving. Several of the schools have
established goals that are commensurate with all three of the above foci. Some of the 15
schools are exploring one focus and planning for further inquiry into the other two. And a few
of the schools are consumed with activities more related to traditional reform than genuine
restructuring. All of the schools have undertaken activities that feature the six goals set forth
in S.B. 1552.
Restructuring: A National Perspective
Mounting public and political pressure to change the way schools operate and educate
students has created formidable challenges for policy makers, researchers, and educators.
Questions about process, definition, and the implicit relationships among reform, restructuring,
and reconstruction have been largely answered by prescriptions, how-to manuals, and trial-and-
error efforts in schools. The need for rich descriptions of school environments and their
societal contexts is provoking researchers to examine the kinds of questions they ask about
the organizational structure of schools, student achievement, the delivery of curriculum and
instruction, local school governance, and the professionalism of teachers.
To restructure means to change the pattern or organization of an entity. However, for
educators and policy makers, the vision of what a restructured school looks like and how it
operates is not yet clear (Betteth, 1988). Without a clear and visionary focus, there can be
no clear direction for schools that are committed to improving student achievement and the
broader outcomes of the educational process. Although as a profession, education has
inimitably tended to shroud ideas in confusing "educationese," language does create images.
The clarity of the image is essential for the successful realization of any vision. Therefore,
the formation of concrete images of successful education practice is a part of the definition
of restructuring (National Governors Association, 1989).
The Lanauaae of Restructurinq
At issue in the plethora of educational jargon attempting to define current trends in reform
and restructuring is clarity of language. Tyack (1 990) stated that it is no accident that a
vague word like restructuring has also become the vogue. The term restructuring, as it
applies to schools, has frequently become synonymous with parental choice, teacher
empowerment, school-based decision making, parent involvement, national standards in
curriculum with tests to match, accountability, decentralization, or any combination of these
concepts.
Interestingly, the term restructuring has been borrowed from American industry, as
business seeks to redefine the processes of ownership in the effort to become more
competitive in a global economy. The diversity of the contextual use of the term restructuring
is equally evident as we observe the international implications of the reorganization of the
Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (Cibulka, 1990).
Central to defining the language of restructuring is the understanding that the
crystallization of concrete images helps to form that elusive thing called vision (National
Governors Association, 1989). In our quest to envision appropriate educational activities,
aims, and purposes, several questions emerge. Will the current restructuring movement help
create a shared vision for schools? Will clarifying the vision assist schools with defining a
process for implementation? Will that vision refocus the mission of schools as we advance
toward and enter the 21 st century (Chandler, 1992)? To answer these questions, we must
briefly examine the historical implications of political change in education.
Restructurina the Vision
Kearns (1 988) offered that American scholars, who were once the envy of the world,
are perhaps best suited to the economic and social needs of an earlier time. He asserted that
the public school system is an outgrowth of the scientific management movement of the early
twentieth century. Goodlad (1988) also commented on the anachronistic nature of the
principles and models applied in education. He outlined five goals aimed at raising the level
of discourse about education.
1. Each child should acquire a meaningful grasp of his culture and develop the kinds of
intellectual tools that will enable him to deal with it.
2. Schools must have a real relationship to basic human values.
3. Schools must learn to deal with individual differences.
4. Individually, we must develop a sense of personal identity, to overcome problems of
alienation.
5. And societally, we must consider the emerging problems resulting from the possibilities
of intervening in human evolution.
Embedded in Goodlad's challenge of creating a vision for education is the change process.
Banathy (1990) acknowledged that over a dozen national reports have raised the level of
consciousness about a national education crisis. Yet, few of the reports have offered clear
means to a distinct end. Moreover, few, if any, of the reports have questioned the basic
premises about the educative functions of society. Most significantly, none of the reports has
examined the process for change.
Svstemic Chanae
The National Governors Association (1 989) recognized the need for long-range strategic
planning and management in education. The participants foretold the need for creative
thinking about how to reorganize the entire system in fundamental ways (restructuring), not
simply to strengthen a few of its parts (reform). Cibulka (1 990) affirms that restructuring is
an encouraging step beyond the nation's previous preoccupation with incremental educational
reform.
Systemic change implies a comprehensive view of the educational system undergoing the
proposed change. Argyris and Schon (1978) posed a basic question for initiating such a
comprehensive examination: How can the organization, through its structures, processes, and
interactions, develop the capacity and capability to engage in meaningful inquiry about itself?
To respond is to understand the fundamental relationship between the organization and the
individuals within it.
Tye (1 992) stated that institutions undergoing change rarely institutionalize the new
behaviors that employees have to exhibit in order for the change to successfully occur. He
postures that the behaviors must be identified and long-term training must be provided for the
stakeholders.
The problem of institutionalizing a process of change is an awesome undertaking
(Alexander, 1991). State constitutions speak to education in general terms, implying "a
measure of orderliness and uniformity ... unitary cohesiveness, not intended to create merely
a conglomeration of locally independent school agencies" (Alexander, 1991, p. 27). If the
obstacles emanate from constitutional provisions, the lawmakers' roles assume new
proportions of importance, particularly if restructuring translates to market choice and
school-based decision making.
From Vision to Practice
Cibulka (1990) defined restructuring as a process intended to lead to important
improvement in the outcomes of the educational system through dramatic changes in
instruction as well as in management and governance. Tinkering with reforms in scheduling
or with newly aligned curricula or purchasing costly technology simply does not constitute
genuine restructuring. Concrete images of restructured practice focus on three inclusive areas
(Cook and Haladyna, 1 992).
Decision makinq. Teachers, parents, and students make substantive decisions about
the problems and issues that confront their local schools. Principals are facilitators and
conveners rather than authoritative leaders (Bank and Williams, 1989). Those closest to the
academic and social problems of the school seek and implement solutions without interference
from central units, i.e. districts, states, and federal bureaucracies.
Curriculum, instruction, and assessment. A thoughtful examination of the inextricable
relationship among these three entities should offer altered delivery strategies, changes in the
structure of the school day, week, and year, meaningful ways of measuring student
achievement and performance, alternative grouping patterns for students such as multi-age
settings or vertical movement of teachers with students through grade levels, interdisciplinary
studies, and a meaningful use of technology that allows students to access information.
Professionalism in the work dace. Redefining school governance and changes in
curriculum and pedagogy generate new roles and relationships among teachers, parents,
students, and school leaders. Supporting the learning environment means that teachers have
time for committee work, conflict resolution, consensus-building, planning, and reflection with
colleagues. Central offices become support and service agencies; students and the community
are placed at the top of the organizational chart; lines of authority are reconfigured; power is
no longer in the hands of a few. With new roles and rights comes responsibility. Teachers
must aggressively pursue professional growth and development opportunities designed to
maximize their potential as adult learners.
The Mission of Schools
Restructuring efforts in public schools will fail without unencumbered national, state and
district sanctions. The scope of proposed change is so far-reaching, that without deregulation
and waivers from legislated mandates, local schools cannot surmount the barriers and
successfully deliver improved outcomes (Olson, 1992). Moreover, restructuring cannot be
mandated in the traditional, hierarchical genre to which education typically gravitates.
The educational stakeholders, parents, teachers, students, and school leaders, must
generate restructuring in the context of the local ethos. Clearly, however, there must be
accompanying incentives and procedures provided by policy makers so that the genesis of
sweeping change occurs within a research-based framework. The stakeholders ought not be
willing to go down the long road of change for merely the sake of change and deal again with
the tragedy of wasted time and wasted lives.
The restructuring of schools is becoming a compelling force in American public
education. Only the stakeholders can define the mission of local schools, the outcomes to
be accomplished, the local impediments to attainment, and the appropriate educational
practices that form the concrete images necessary for implementation. Researchers are
responsible for richly describing learning environments and producing a guiding set of
principles. The state lawmakers can provide monetary incentives and bureaucratic procedures
that facilitate genuine restructuring. And the national politicians must "reaffirm the value of
public education to our democratic way of life" (Tye, 1992, p. 13).
How is Arizona Doing?
With the passage of Senate Bill 1552 (1 990), a joint legislative committee established
monetary incentives for Arizona schools to restructure. Fifteen schools received funding to
explore restructuring efforts defined within the six goals described on page one of this report.
Consistent with the national tenets of restructuring, Arizona lawmakers provided
incentives without wholesale mandate. Encouraging local control and school level design, the
legislators confine communication with the projects to building level personnel. Teachers,
parents, and school administrators are invited to share their successes and their projected
needs and activities directly with the Joint Legislative Committee. Circumventing district
personnel for purposes of establishing a direct communication link between the legislature and
schools is clearly worthy of distinction from legislative efforts in other states.
The Joint Legislative Committee approved the use of external evaluators who were
committed to self-study. Each of the 15 project schools determined their project outcomes,
collected appropriate data, and reported their findings. Each school, in turn, received an
analysis of its self-study with recommendations for improving data collection and analysis.
Technical assistance will follow to assist schools with learning about and valuing the process
of documenting educational practice. The self-study model of program evaluation is in
accordance with the national perspective that favors school-based decision making and
promotes participation by the stakeholders in project design, implementation, and evaluation.
The 15 restructuring sites in Arizona have undertaken restructuring efforts in varying
degrees relative to a continuum that represents the spectrum of reform to reconstruction.
Understandably, the extent of genuine restructuring seemed to be a function of the level of
reform activities undertaken prior to project implementation. However, regardless of the levels
of sophistication at the outset of the projects, some schools progressed much farther than
others, suggesting a developmental view of success (Neibur, 1992). That is, progress toward
becoming a restructured school is at least as commendable as maintaining a restructured
school. Notably, those schools that demonstrated restructuring efforts consistent with a
national perspective were those that inclusively embraced all six goals with a clear vision.
Likewise, schools that didn't show evidence of significant progress seemed to view the six
goals as mutually exclusive. While the most successful projects showed progress in all six
areas, there was qualitative evidence that the six goals do not account for all of the elements
essential for success nor do they account for the intrinsic driving forces of restructuring
(Neibur, 1992).
Arizona hosts at least 15 school sites that have pioneered restructuring efforts. The
most immediate effects are already being felt in the lives of students and communities. An
examination of the barriers, transportability of the innovations, and review of the policies
affecting restructuring will encourage more schools in Arizona to undertake substantive
change.
How Can Arizona Improve Its Restructuring Efforts
Public schools are highly regulated institutions. Binding decisions made at the federal,
state, and district levels, which are intended to safeguard education, tend to have the
cumulative effect of placing a chokehold on local initiative.
The complex funding formula that allocates monies to schools in Arizona dictates the
funneling of dollars through central offices, i.e. districts. This channeling of resources
frequently imposes varying demands and obstacles to local school teachers and
administrators. It is hoped, if not proposed, that even in the absence of school district
reorganization in Arizona, supplementary monies such as S.B. 1552 funding, might be
allocated directly to local schools with the principal assuming fiduciary responsibilities.
Although Arizona lawmakers offered appropriate incentives to schools for restructuring,
there has, as yet, been no waiver in regulations and mandates. Evidenced in the national
review of literature, deregulation is central to the success of restructuring. It has been
difficult for some of the project sites to fully implement their visions within the confines of
a myriad of mandated programs and the host of regulations that emanate from federal funding
sources, e.g. Chapter 1. Struggling to fund programs and activities, it is not uncommon for
schools to become hopelessly gridlocked by too many funding sources, each demanding its
own set of expectations. It is hoped that the state policy makers will continue to explore
processes for loosening the complicated strings that accompany the flow of dollars to schools
without mitigating the quality of services or forgoing accountability.
A Model For Restructuring
In soliciting information about the projects in the pilot sites through interviews, the
comments from teachers, parents, and students did not cluster evenly or naturally around the
six goals outlined in S.B. 1552 (Neibur, 1992). There seemed to be little consensus across
sites, or even within sites, about the definition of any given goal. The comments offered
evidence that increasing student achievement surfaces as the hub of restructuring. Three
goals, implementing school-based decision making, examining and significantly altering
curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and improving professionalism in the work place
surround the hub of student achievement. Finally, characteristics or themes of restructuring
seem to include increased parental participation, greater effort to meet the unique needs of
students, increased efficiency and effectiveness, and an improved school or learning
environment. These findings offer support for a new model of restructuring, with
commensurate definitions, to be entertained by lawmakers as reiterations of Senate Bill 1552
(1 990) are drafted.
Curriculum, Instruction
and Assessment
pZq Participation Fl Efficiency F l r - 1 Environment
Vision Without Barriers
As noted in the national perspective, the three driving questions focused on vision.
The most striking characteristic of the successful projects was a dynamic decision making
process that developed and continually refined a shared vision of what restructuring meant
to the participating stakeholders. It was almost uncanny how closely the teachers, parents,
and students agreed upon the goals, successes, and difficulties of their restructuring efforts
when they felt they were involved in the process of defining what restructuring was to mean
in their school. When participants shared a common vision of restructuring, they were able
to create, modify, or dissolve programs and reallocate resources without violating the integrity
of their school identity. When a site lacked that unifying identify, the participants frequently
became paralyzed by trying to respond to the demanding and conflicting needs of too many
programs, too many goals, and too little time (Neibur, 1992).
Perhaps as other iterations of Senate Bill 1552 (1 990) are considered, policy makers
will include incentives to school sites for identifying a shared vision of restructuring and for
identifying processes and procedures for enactment. In so doing, the intrinsic driving forces
of teachers, parents, students, and administrators to restructure will emerge and provide an
even clearer picture of the restructured school.
Summary and Conclusions
We have sought to characterize school restructuring in Arizona through this first year's
evaluation process. What we have learned is that the state is indeed doing quite well in
stimulating 15 schools to thoughtfully restructure. We believe that defining restructuring
narrowly in future legislation may not be in the best interests of all schools. The peculiar,
individual nature of restructuring makes it necessary to afford each school site the opportunity
to uniquely define its effort in light of its individuality, particularly its students, parents,
community values, teachers, and other resources.
How Are the Schools Doina?
One of the most positive and uplifting features of these 15 projects, and the state's
efforts to assist them, is the creativity and energy of site-based decision making. Governance
teams are uniquely addressing the problems faced by schools. The site-based responsibility
and authority appear to capture the best of the restructuring effort. With each of these
schools, we are witnessing a unique, non-standard evolution toward effective self-governance,
a worthy goal for not only schools, but for students, teachers, and parents as well. The 15
schools are effectively addressing curriculum, instruction, and assessment in various ways.
And the schools have explored avenues for improving the professionalism of teachers,
recognizing the need for teachers to take care of and protect their profession.
How Can the Schools Improve Their Restructurina Efforts?
Planning for a vision of restructuring emerges from the literature and from the results
of the schools' self-studies as critical to the success of implementing meaningful change in
schools. Effectively documenting educational practice, that is, collecting and analyzing
appropriate data, and interpreting the results in a meaningful way are efforts that school
personnel are frequently uncomfortable in doing. Yet, within the profession, this void in
program evaluation reinforces the vulnerability of educators at every level. The 15 project
sites in Arizona are making significant progress toward improving their evaluation efforts.
Commitment to the evaluative process as well a commitment to making changes in schools
that will drastically alter the educational outcomes are consistent with the national perspective
on restructuring.
How Is Arizona Doina?
Arizona has made significant progress toward reducing the barriers to restructuring that
have been noted in other states. Examining the laws, policies, and procedures that provide
incentives to schools to restructure will provide additional clarity and focus to the educational
stakeholders. Currently, 1 5 schools have been encouraged to design, develop, and implement
programs that will affect local constituencies. Most significantly, there has been no wholesale
mandate for restructuring, which is clearly the highest form of compliment that ought to be
duly accorded to Arizona lawmakers.
How Can Arizona lm~roveIt s Restructurina Efforts?
S. B. 1552 currently directs the restructuring efforts in 15 pilot schools. As the law
is revisited, perhaps a reorganization of the six goals can be considered. Based on the
qualitative and quantitative evidence gathered from site visits and the self-study reports, an
altered model for restructuring emerges featuring a central focus on increasing student
achievement with concomitant goals of increasing decision making, altering curriculum,
instruction, and assessment, and improving professionalism. This set of goals is then
supported by themes or characteristics of restructuring such as meeting unique needs of
students, parental involvement, improving the learning environment, and increasing efficiency.
Policy makers can be proud of their efforts to encourage genuine restructuring in
Arizona schools. To the extent that the process is evolutionary, the 15 pilot sites ought to
be commended for asking tough questions about schooling and responding with heartfelt
activities designed to improve education in public schools in Arizona.
References
Alexander, D. and Alexander K. (1 992). American Public School Law,
St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Banathy, Bela. (1 990). The Transformation of Education by Design".
A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago.
Bank, Adrianne, and Williams, Richard. (1 989). "Overcoming the
Obstacles to Site-Based Management." Thrust, 1 7-20.
Betteth, Diane. (1 988). Restructuring Schools; Reform for Everyone?: Restructuring Teaching:
Tower of Babel or Shared Vision. Teaching.
Chandler, M. & Cook, S. (1992) "The Nature of the Beast: Reform to Reconstruction". A
Paper Presented at sympoisum on school restructuring at the annual meeting of the
Arizona Educational Research Association, Phoenix.
Cibulka, James. (1 990). American Educational Reform and Government Power. Education.
Cook, S.J., and Haladyna, T.M. (1 992). Technical Report 92-1: School
Incentives Restructuring Pilot Project. Phoenix, Az: Center for Educational Reserch
an Evaluation Studies, ASU West.
Goodlad, John. (1 990). "Why our Schools Don't Get Much Better and How they Might".
Teacher, 1 7 (4).
Neibur, L. (1 992). Restructuring the Vision. A paper presented at a sympoisum on school
restructuring at the annual meeting of the Arizona Educational Research Association.
Phoenix.
Olson, L. (1 992). Quality is Job One: Changing Schools and Classrooms. TeacherMagazine
Sheane, Kim (1 992). Barriers to Restructuring. A paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Arizona Educational Research Association, Phoenix.
Tyack, David. (1974). "The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education".
Harvard Re view.
Tye, Kenneth A. (1 992). "Restructuring Our Schools: Beyond
the Rhetoric". Phi Delta Kappan 4 (1 1 8-1 4.
Yavorsky, Diane. (1 977). Discrepancy Evaluation: A Practitioner's
Guide. Charlottesville, VA: Evaluation Research Centerat the University of Virginia.